Understand that we have a constitutional right to say more or less whatever comes to our head. Just the way it works.

no, we don't.

Quote:

So how does any of this tie into the original point of the argument? Simple. If you've been placed in the friendzone by a a young woman or man and you are unhappy about it you have a right, legal and otherwise, to vocalize it. You do not have the right to emotional manipulation,

While sometimes "Ms. Starling" does come off a bit paranoid to me, I believe that to me, it is due to cultural differences. You see, I live in Brazil, and people here seem to be much more trusting of each other than in the US of A. I don't know about the rape statistics, and I'd be willing to guess that if there are less rapes here, it is not by a significant margin, but it is simply a part of Brazilian culture to be open to chatting with just about anyone at about anytime.

"A bit paranoid" is an understatement. I can't speak for the cultural differences because I don't live in the US, but I imagine not every woman in the US have the same mindset as Starling.

Quote:

However, most of the text strikes me as quite reasonable... Women DO live under the risk of being raped, and knowing that there are many people who are capable and willing of doing that is, obviously, a major stress factor.

And men live under the risk of being violently assaulted or murdered and in much larger frequency than women. However, much like Ms. Starling's fear, it is mostly unfounded around strangers, since most murders are commited by someone you know, a close relative, friend or acquaintance, and most rapes are commited by someone you know, a close relative, friend or acquaintance. The only thing that's not unfounded about her diatribe is that most rapes, even stranger rapes, befall women, but most murders -- especially by strangers -- befall men, so it balances out, I suppose.

Quote:

So yeah, to me it seems she just wants a little respect, and that men seek to notice if women wish to be left alone - and LEAVE THEM THE FUCK ALONE if they wish so. That seems completely reasonable (and respectful) to me.

Right, and normally this would be fine if she was arguing the case for common courtesy, not arguing whether this man with intent to flirt wants to rape her.

Quote:

As for the "Schrodinger's rapist" analogy, I believe all "Ms. Starling" meant is that she has NO WAY AT ALL to tell if any man is a rapist or not, which is simple caution on her part.

That's just it: it's not supposed to be an either/or question. The subject is supposed to be in two states at the same time, the cat (the original experiment) was both dead and alive, much like the particles in the double slit were both three lines or one line at the same time, until they were observed. Therefore, logically "Schrödinger's Rapist" wouldn't be a rapist or not, but a rapist and not a rapist at the same time. Which is, of course, complete nonsense. Hence my suggestion to redub it to Pascal's Rapist, or Occam's Rapist if you're feeling generous.

Quote:

Or, simply: I do not understand what is Guest's problem with the article. While some of the lines, if analyzed individually, come off as paranoid, as a whole, the text is quite reasonable. I would be glad if he would be kind enough to explain to me what exactly is his problem with it.

Please pardon my English if I have comitted any egregious mistakes.

Your English is fine. My problem with the article is thus:

It's fearmongering for one. She makes the case that women should fear men approaching them to be would-be rapists and assumes condescendingly that they feel the same way, and secondly, she feeds them misinformation about rape when if anything "Schrödinger's Rapist" should be a family member more than a stranger, since they account for 60-70% more of the rapes commited than strange men you see on the street. In other words, the delusions of a paranoid woman. I'm not likely to take the words to heart about the fears of being raped from strange men from a woman who says (with all seriousness) that whenever she goes on a date, she always writes down their full name and contact information so the police would find her body in case she goes missing. Heh. No. She's a loony._________________"Apparently so. But suppose you throw a coin enough times, suppose one day. . . it lands on its edge."
--Amy Hennig, Soul Reaver 2

So with the addition of Guest's article this argument is going in a new direction I see. So let me say this off the bat.

~Women are more likely to be sexually and violently assaulted by men than the other way around.

~Most violent crimes are committed by someone the victim knows more often than not a spouse or loved one.

These facts are true. I don't think anyone here would disagree with that. However, the way in which they are presented shows a sexual bias much the same way that Guests article does. If I were to throw other facts out there it changes the over all tone.

~in a study 25% of men vs. 87% of women used a weapon while physically assaulting their partner.

~Studies have shown many police officers do not treat domestic violence against men as a serious crime, and often will view the male victim as a "pathetic figure".

~since 1975 the number of violent crimes by women committed against men has risen dramatically.

The fact is that violence of any kind is a serious problem in this country and as a result of misrepresentation (especially by radical feminist, some of whom have gone so far as to send death threats to individuals trying to change pronouns of legislation.) we are simply from an environment of inequality for women to one of inequality for men.

By stating this I in no way dismiss the actions of men who abuse or physically harm women. I simply state that enforcing the idea that all women are victims and all men are predators is sexist. Violent crime is a problem and it needs to be addressed as a gender neutral issue.

Anyhow, I believe it was Snorri who wisely pointed out that the Friend Zone is something one does to oneself. It exists, but inside the minds of those who have been rejected. This is why there's no point in being just-friends with somebody if you're romantically interested but they aren't; it's nothing but pain. Let them go.

This doesn't strike me as a positive approach, either. Emotionally safer, sure, but awfully simplistic. What about people on whom you have a crush? Or people you work with? Or, god forbid, the wife of a friend? There are going to be people in life you feel strongly about, and avoiding them isn't an answer. It buys into a notion that you're powerless to control your emotions, which I think has the potential to do more harm than good. I think - and this is purely an opinion - that we need to expect more from ourselves and others. If someone wants to be your friend that's good. There are precious few people I give a goddamn about to any significant depth. I'd rather have them as friends than not at all. Figuring out how not to get fucked up about it is just another life lesson.

On the other hand you have no obligation to be friends with everyone. You do not have to be powerless to control your emotions to not consider getting over someone and forming a friendship to be worth it all the time.

Getting over your shit because you already have a non-romantic relationship with that person is fine, but there is no obligation to form a friendship just because the person wants to be your friend. You should form a friendship because you want that friendship, not because they want it.

In that way it's pretty muck like ex-girlfriends/boyfriends. Some you stay friends with and some you don't. To say that staying friends is the superior option is silly. Sometimes it is what you want, sometimes it isn't.

(btw, I don't mean to imply that you should delete the other person from your memory and start ignoring them. Friendship and being friendly with another person are two different things.)

So, I honestly do not expect everybody ever to want to be my friend. When I get down on people who complain about 'friendzone' it's because the people that have issue with this are often the people that do NOT come out and make their interests clear.

It's a dick move to act like a friend and never ask for more, then tell me I'm a horrible person for not putting out, or for dating someone else, or otherwise not catching on that hey you wanted a relationship when I WAS NEVER TOLD. I am somehow supposed to magically know when people are doing things to be nice and when they do things because they hope for something more out of me.

The thing is, I really fucking hate having to question all of my dude friend's motives. When I was blissfully unaware of 'the friendzone' I traipsed through life assuming people did nice things because they were good people. Imagine my surprise._________________Samsally the GrayAce

Understand that we have a constitutional right to say more or less whatever comes to our head. Just the way it works.

no, we don't.

Quote:

So how does any of this tie into the original point of the argument? Simple. If you've been placed in the friendzone by a a young woman or man and you are unhappy about it you have a right, legal and otherwise, to vocalize it. You do not have the right to emotional manipulation,

and what if that is itself emotional manipulation?

Ok shadow you want me to talk to you fine. As I've said before we DO have the right to say whatever we please short of sedition and slander. That is in fact a constitutional right. So what on Earth are you talking about? As I thought before it seems to me that you are more interested in antagonizing people than actually trying to get a point across. Thus why I have ignored your posts prior to this one.

If you are afraid the truth is emotional manipulation then maybe you should take a moment to be look at yourself.

neither point you made is true. read the First Amendment: it doesn't say that we have an unlimited right to expression, it says that Congress shall make no law abridging the things it lists. those are not the same thing. it means that private parties--such as, say, message board administrators--are fully within their rights to abridge the hell out of your freedom of expression. you may not like it, but the Constitution doesn't say that they can't do that; it just says that the government can't do that.

besides which, not even the Constitution gives you clearance to just say whatever you want. dual use research, threats, classified information, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and so on are all restricted.

on the other hand, even if we granted your supposition, you still wouldn't have a point, because Monkey telling you that you should shut up is just as protected as whatever you said. because even if we grant that the constitution gives us the right to say pretty much whatever we want, it is a strange and arbitrary addition to say that that doesn't include "you should shut up." what Monkey can't do under your conception of free speech is compel you to shut up--but, then, he hasn't done that. so you've got nothing to complain about even under your own lights. in fact, by insisting that he should not be allowed to tell you to shut up, you're treading dangerously close to violating your own conception of free speech, which is pretty spectacular.

and at any rate, appealing to the First Amendment won't help you here because no party on this forum is the government.

as for the second point, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of passive-aggression. so if

Quote:

you've been placed in the friendzone by a a young woman or man and you are unhappy about it

then complaining about it means you are necessarily engaging in emotional manipulation, because by complaining that

Quote:

you've been placed in the friendzone by a a young woman or man and you are unhappy about it

you are invoking the idea that someone was wrong to place you in the friendzone and we should feel sorry for you over it. that is inherent in the concept. the very structure of the sentence leads you to that conclusion.

and yes, that is emotional manipulation. it's an attempt, conscious or otherwise, to make other people feel sorry for you because someone didn't give you the romantic interest to which you felt entitled, consciously or otherwise, and such lack of reciprocation was something that they did to you and something they were wrong to do.

no, that is not the same as being unhappy that someone you're interested in didn't return your interest.

so you say that women are disproportionately more likely to be victimized by violent crime but we should ignore that?

why should it be treated as a gender neutral issue when it is not a gender neutral issue by your own admission?

Then you are saying only men are capable of committing violent crimes? Because, if women as capable as men of committing violent crimes it's no longer a mater of gender. It is a criminal act that needs to be addressed as (gender neutral) offender and victim.

ShadowCell wrote:

Quote:

especially by radical feminist, some of whom have gone so far as to send death threats to individuals trying to change pronouns of legislation

that's not a story. it's an opinion piece. interestingly, the allegations that radical feminists made death threats against her and killed her dog come from her.

Quote:

Then you are saying only men are capable of committing violent crimes? Because, if women as capable as men of committing violent crimes it's no longer a mater of gender. It is a criminal act that needs to be addressed as (gender neutral) offender and victim.

no. read what i said. hell, read what you said. you yourself said that women are disproportionately victimized by violent crime. if more women than men suffer from violent crime, then violent crime is obviously not gender neutral.

no, that doesn't mean that men don't suffer from violent crime too. nor does it mean that women don't commit violent crime. but it also doesn't mean that violent crime is gender neutral.

so, since we agree that violent crime is not gender neutral, why should we treat it as if it is?

*cue Monkey and that Shortpacked "misandry!" comic, or the "somewhere someone's talking about lady problems that aren't yet about dudes!" one, 'cuz that's pretty much where we're headed

neither point you made is true. read the First Amendment: it doesn't say that we have an unlimited right to expression, it says that Congress shall make no law abridging the things it lists. those are not the same thing. it means that private parties--such as, say, message board administrators--are fully within their rights to abridge the hell out of your freedom of expression. you may not like it, but the Constitution doesn't say that they can't do that; it just says that the government can't do that.

The right of a private party to censor their own private property in no way takes away from our right to freedom of speech. This board while open to the public is still private property. Your example doesn't apply

ShadowCell wrote:

besides which, not even the Constitution gives you clearance to just say whatever you want. dual use research, threats, classified information, falsely shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, and so on are all restricted.

Nothing you have stated here actually goes against what I've said. You've made the assumption that I have given the ok to say anything without limit when I myself have stated that Slander and Sedition will not be tolerated. Should I add words that imply imminent bodily harm as well? Otherwise I've already covered this.

ShadowCell wrote:

on the other hand, even if we granted your supposition, you still wouldn't have a point, because Monkey telling you that you should shut up is just as protected as whatever you said. because even if we grant that the constitution gives us the right to say pretty much whatever we want, it is a strange and arbitrary addition to say that that doesn't include "you should shut up." what Monkey can't do under your conception of free speech is compel you to shut up--but, then, he hasn't done that. so you've got nothing to complain about even under your own lights. in fact, by insisting that he should not be allowed to tell you to shut up, you're treading dangerously close to violating your own conception of free speech, which is pretty spectacular.

This is a stupid I've stated on several occasions that I have not told monkey to shut up. I have in no way contradicted my own statements.

ShadowCell wrote:

and at any rate, appealing to the First Amendment won't help you here because no party on this forum is the government.

When the topic of conversation moves into the rights that people do and do not have such things do apply.

ShadowCell wrote:

as for the second point, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of passive-aggression. so if

So you believe any attempt to assert your opinions is passive aggressive? Of course you don't. However, you have made it clear that anyone stating their feelings regardless of tone is a form of passive aggressive emotional manipulation.

ShadowCell wrote:

Quote:

you've been placed in the friendzone by a a young woman or man and you are unhappy about it

then complaining about it means you are necessarily engaging in emotional manipulation, because by complaining that

this argument is absurd.

ShadowCell wrote:

Quote:

you've been placed in the friendzone by a a young woman or man and you are unhappy about it

you are invoking the idea that someone was wrong to place you in the friendzone and we should feel sorry for you over it. that is inherent in the concept. the very structure of the sentence leads you to that conclusion.

and yes, that is emotional manipulation. it's an attempt, conscious or otherwise, to make other people feel sorry for you because someone didn't give you the romantic interest to which you felt entitled, consciously or otherwise, and such lack of reciprocation was something that they did to you and something they were wrong to do.

no, that is not the same as being unhappy that someone you're interested in didn't return your interest.

Your argument is flawed. I have never said that anyone did anything wrong. In point of fact I stated that neither placing someone in the friendzone nor being upset/expressing your feelings over such an act were inherently wrong. They are simply actions that happened.

I've already expressed a disdain for the idea that entering a friendship with romantic aspirations should be considered an entitlement. So with that assumption that that is my stance there will be no common or meeting ground.

I also think it's ridiculous that you have managed to state that any act conscious or otherwise that puts a person ill at ease should be at best frowned upon.

I think it's pretty creepy how you think you should be allowed to make people ill at ease all you want and suffer no social consequences. It's as though you think you shouldn't be held responsible for your own actions.

(Edited this to clarify a bit.)_________________Samsally the GrayAce

Last edited by Samsally on Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

you said we have a constitutional right, i.e. from the first amendment, to freedom of expression. we do not; we have a constitutional right that Congress shall make no law abridging our freedom of expression. if you're going to move on to some more general right not grounded in any particular law, then a) good luck with that and b) you are moving the goalposts, which is nice and dishonest of you.

besides which, you should probably go read the terms of service you agreed to when you signed up on this forum. your "right to freedom of speech" can be quite easily overridden at the site administrator's whim. if your right can be trumped so easily, well, so much the worse for your right.

you still don't seem to have any understanding of any of the concepts under discussion. you don't understand "freedom of speech," you don't understand "passive-aggression," you really don't understand basic logic. it's like you're not even talking to me.

of course the arguments you think i made are absurd. you never took the time to read them, you just supplied your own confused inchoate rambling and hoped i wouldn't notice. and yet you say that i'm the one who antagonizes people? like here:

Quote:

I have never said that anyone did anything wrong. In point of fact I stated that neither placing someone in the friendzone nor being upset/expressing your feelings over such an act were inherently wrong. They are simply actions that happened.

this does not actually even address my argument. you can't go on to say it's flawed if you don't understand it, and you clearly do not understand it.

it's very simple, and even in nice short words too. it's all about how the things you express when you complain that you have been "put in the friendzone" preclude a simple expression of opinion.

why? because if you think you've been "put in the friendzone" then, due to the meaning of the concepts, you think you have been wronged.

why? because the entire point of the concept of the friendzone is that you think you are entitled to someone's romantic interest and they wronged you by not returning that interest and instead wanting a relationship with you of a different sort. hence you are "put in the friendzone." the very grammatical structure of the phrase suggests that it's something someone else does to you, and rare is the usage of the phrase that does not include the meaning that the speaker things it was wrong.

so, if you complain about that, you are necessarily complaining about how you've been wronged, because that's what the whole concept means: "they didn't return my feelings and they were wrong not to." and it is a pretty easy jump from there to complaining about how you've been wronged as a method of emotional manipulation. hence, passive-aggression.

i explained this already and nothing you've said even addresses it. we wouldn't have to do this if you'd actually read the words on the screen.

you haven't argued anything, although you have given a lot of evidence for your own lack of reading comprehension. go back and try again.

Something to keep in mind in discussion about the "friendzone" is that this word might have different meanings to different people. I know that it was fairly neutral to me for a long time, just a discription for the situation were one party is romantically interested, but the other isn't, so the two persons are just friends. The douchy subtext of entitlement isn't known or intended by a fair number of people who use the word.